From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Elements (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

FAQ - Antihydrogen Fusion Reaction ?[edit]

What would the expected consequences of an antihydrogen fusion reaction be ? Is it possible ? Would the effects be similar to hydrogen fusion with the exception of the creation of antihelium instead, or would it be expected to behave differently ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It would behave the same way, theoretically. Practically, it would be very difficult to achieve since it would be almost impossible to keep the antimatter from bumping into matter. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

On the AntiMatter page it says this was made already in 1995 ! Doesn't it say here 2002 ? Which is correct? Sebastian Haase

I've just changed the article. You can find a preprint about the experiments in 1995 here. 01:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After some searching, i've found out the Particle accelerator are constructed as we speak, and estimated to be finished in 2q of 2007 -- 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This source [1] says Fermi also generated antihydrogen, and credits a SLAC researcher, Charles Munger, with coming up with the approach used to find antihydrogen.

Is it just me, or does source 3 only describe a potential method for trapping low temperature anit-protons, and does not actually report it having been achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name...[edit]

... as h-bar. Do we have a reference for this? It seems strange that a species of interest only to physicists would be given a name which could easily be confused with the reduced Planck constant. Brammers (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, but please reinsert with a reliable cite. -84user (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please put it back with a {{citation needed}}; it seems to be legit information: Here is an official site that is uses the symbol. I can't immediately find a webpage that specifically mentions that the h-bar symbol is used to represent antihydrogen. here and here are links to two more unrelated pages that use it.
I do not know which institution decides these things: Wikipedia doesn't seem to know and Google doesn't return any relevant results to my limit searches. If somebody knows which organisation officially decides on the symbols, I expect you can find a publication that has more details from them.     — SkyLined (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I added text that some physicists use the symbol and others use the word "hbar", using three cites as examples. -84user (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

- all journal articles that use a symbol use H-bar - written as H with an overline - so it's really not much of a debate. I've updated this in the entry - there is no ambiguity Planck's constant is allways lower-case h (massen (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

uninformative text removed[edit]

A potential solution to this problem would be to produce antihydrogen atoms at such a low temperature (perhaps a fraction of a kelvin) that they can be captured in a magnetic trap or a combined rf trap.

I removed the above text, and its hidden html comment, as it simply told the reader nothing. It was the equivalent of: Problem is AH is too hot; solution is make AH not so hot. That is not a solution. -84user (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

available for purchase? really?[edit]

and is it ever going to be? I feel like that's saying that nuclear bombs are not available for purchase or that the washington monument is not available for purchase. I would think that that section should be removed. Sompm (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. -84user (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Antimatter atom trapped[edit] ... needs updating. --Kslotte (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this discvery only a one sentence thing? --Kslotte (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


What is it please tell me. (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Duh. A Molekule, consisting out of two Antihydrogen atoms and one Antioxigen atom. Just replace the particles water consists of, with their respective antimater counterparts. -- (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)